How grammatical constructions contribute to responsibility attribution in GBV coverage: a corpus-assisted study

Abstract

Abstract The portrayal of key participants in gender-based violence (GBV) by the media has been analyzed as ideologically driven by critical discourse analysis (CDA) scholars. Nevertheless, previous studies of media coverage of GBV cases with a CDA approach were confined to qualitative analysis while quantitative evidence was lacking and were perpetrator-oriented without the victim’s perspectives. Addressing these gaps, this study conducted a case analysis of four British newspapers, each representing different political inclinations. Results revealed that the political inclinations did not influence media’s preference for certain constructions. However, the perpetrator was ascribed with a much greater degree of agency in high frequency active constructions. Even in passive and nominal constructions, he was specified more frequently than deleted, contradicting most previous research indicating that the perpetrators were often deleted to conjure away responsibility. We also verified the significance of the context particularly in interpreting the agentless passive and nominal constructions. Further research from diachronic and reader-oriented perspectives should bring more converging evidence.